The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: veto
Senate Fails To Override Obama’s Veto Of Keystone XL Pipeline

Senate Fails To Override Obama’s Veto Of Keystone XL Pipeline

By Lisa Mascaro, Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — The Senate failed Wednesday to override President Barack Obama’s veto of Keystone XL pipeline legislation, ending for now attempts by Congress to speed up approval of the controversial energy project.

Falling short of the two-thirds majority needed, Republicans backers of the pipeline could not peel off enough Democratic supporters to join them. The vote was 62-37, with all Republicans and eight Democrats in favor.

The outcome was the latest setback for the GOP-led Congress, which made passage of Keystone a top priority. It served up a victory for the White House on the first major veto of Obama’s administration.

“For a long time, projects like Keystone used to be no-brainers — they were often approved without much controversy at all,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who made the bill the first order of business when he took control of the chamber in January. “But that was before powerful special interest groups and ideological extremists decided to embark on a quixotic quest.”

Noting the significance of the override attempt, McConnell required senators to take the roll call vote from their desks, a rare practice reserved for landmark votes.

Democratic opponents said halting the project was the right decision. Critics of the pipeline argue it would prolong energy dependence on fossil fuels and worsen climate change.

“Why would be build a pipeline to bring filthy, dirty oil to our great nation, to our communities?” asked Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). “The only thing it helps, frankly, are the special interests in Canada.”

In many ways, the debate over the Keystone project has become more about politics than substance, as rhetoric on both sides escalated.

The vote also showed the limits of the new Republican Congress in the face of the president’s veto power, which was rarely used when Democrats controlled Congress.

The $8 billion project proposed by the TransCanada Corp. would carry oil from the tar sands of Canada’s Alberta province through the U.S. heartland.

The Obama administration might still approve the project. But the White House opposed the attempt by Congress to expedite approval, especially while a court case is underway in Nebraska, where the path of the pipeline splits to run east through Missouri and south to the Gulf Coast.

Both the House and Senate passed the bill earlier this year to push approval after years of delay. Many Democrats joined the Republican-led effort.

Supporters said the project would create needed American jobs, and a federal review said more than 40,000 direct and indirect jobs would be created during pipeline construction. Later, however, there would be only 35 permanent U.S. jobs during pipeline operation, the review said.

As oil prices tumbled last year, some experts questioned whether the pipeline project made financial sense. Backers insist the project will continue.

With the outcome in the Senate, rules prevent the House from taking its own override vote.

Photo: Rainforest Action Network via Flickr

With Veto Threats To Congress, Obama Is Saying ‘Yes’ To His Policies

With Veto Threats To Congress, Obama Is Saying ‘Yes’ To His Policies

By Robert J. Spitzer, Los Angeles Times (TNS)

Congress’ expected final passage of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline bill sets up the first square veto confrontation between President Obama and the new Republican-controlled Congress, marking the first time in his presidency when significant measures he opposes are likely to land on his desk instead of dying in the formerly Democratic-controlled Senate.

Even with the help of Democratic-led filibusters in the Senate, this will probably be the first of many such confrontations, marking a significant change in Obama’s legislative strategy. After all, in his first six years, Obama vetoed only two bills, both relatively minor. Now, however, he faces the prospect of acquiring the moniker “President No,” given a Congress under full control by the opposing party. How will this change in strategy bode for his presidency and his legacy?

The answer proves to be more complicated than punditry suggests.

Today, the presidential veto is viewed as simply granting the power to say “no.” But the founding fathers knew better. To them, the presidential veto was the “revisionary power.” Early drafts of the Constitution referenced “revision” in describing the veto process but the phrasing wasn’t in the document’s final version. James Madison referred to the veto and Congress’ subsequent consideration as “separate revision.” To them, the veto was more than the power to say “no” — it was a final chance for constructive improvement of legislation by both branches.

Americans want their presidents to be leaders, even when they disagree with the paths the presidents are taking. Presidents can use the veto power prolifically and effectively. Historically, presidential vetoes are sustained — that is, not overridden by Congress — about 93 percent of the time; for major legislation, more than 80 percent of vetoes stick.

The most prolific user of the veto by total numbers was Franklin D. Roosevelt. The key to his success? He continued to advance a positive agenda, even as he ginned up political veto melodrama, as in 1935 when he announced with great fanfare that he would deliver his veto of a veterans’ bonus bill personally to a joint session of Congress. He also read his veto message on national radio.

However, a veto strategy can either fortify or cripple a presidency. Presidents cannot govern effectively by veto alone. Those who have tried, from Andrew Johnson to Gerald Ford, have fared poorly, garnering both congressional ire and the country’s scorn, precisely because they advanced no positive policy alternatives. In Ford’s case, his 66 vetoes were his main legislative accomplishment; his rapid ascension to the presidency provided no opportunity to formulate his own agenda. As one Ford aide said, his many vetoes “eroded the president’s already limited base of support.”

In Obama’s case, his opposition to Keystone stands athwart both public approval and bipartisan congressional support, seeming to presage Obama’s first step down the road to President No. Yet Obama’s State of the Union address, with its multiple veto threats, suggests a different path.

Obama issued more veto threats in his speech than any president since World War II, warning Congress that he would veto any bill that would curtail the Affordable Care Act, unravel Dodd-Frank banking regulations, trim his executive actions on immigration or impose new sanctions on Iran. He also suggested vetoes for bills that would constrict measures that expanded economic opportunity. Before the speech, he threatened to veto legislation that attempted to curtail environmental protections or access to abortion.

The common thread is that these are all efforts by Congress to roll back existing policies enacted or advanced by Obama. Unlike in the case of Keystone, his vetoes of these measures would not simply be his “no” to a new policy, but his defense of hard-won policy objectives that also find public support — his way of saying “yes” in the face of Congress’ “no.”

When Obama’s veto defense of these policies is combined with the rest of his speech advocating new and popular policies — such as raising the minimum wage, giving free access to a community college education, increasing child-care affordability, and guaranteeing paid sick leave for workers and pay equity for women — he has taken the political offensive. Even if, as expected, Congress passes none of these measures, Obama has made clear what he is for. That fact, combined with his past legislative and executive accomplishments, enable him to retain the strategic high ground, and the mantle of positive leader, avoiding the stigma of President No.

This underscores the Republicans’ enduring problem of governance: It is clear what they are against — but what are they for? If history reveals anything, it is that, regardless of ideology or party, effective governance is predicated on an affirmative agenda. If congressional Republicans spend the next two years enacting bill after bill designed to dismantle policies that have been enacted, without offering any positive programs of their own, Obama need not worry about his veto record or image as leader. Republicans will have reassured their base, but also pushed 270 electoral votes further from their grasp in 2016.

Photo: President Obama addresses members of the House Democratic caucus on Thursday, Jan. 29, 2015, during a three-day policy retreat in Philadelphia’s Society Hill neighborhood. (Tom Gralish/Philadelphia Inquirer/TNS)

Obama Urges Congress To Hold Off On Iran Sanctions, Threatens Veto

Obama Urges Congress To Hold Off On Iran Sanctions, Threatens Veto

Washington (AFP) – U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday urged Congress not to impose new sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear program, threatening to veto any such legislation that lands on his desk.

“Congress needs to show patience,” Obama told a joint news conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, adding that new sanctions would “jeopardize the possibility of… providing a diplomatic solution to one of the most difficult and long-lasting national security problems that we’ve faced in a very long time.”

Cameron also spoke out against calls for further sanctions on Iran, saying negotiations needed “space” to succeed.

“We remain absolutely committed to ensuring that Iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon,” Cameron said.

“The best way to achieve that now is to create the space for negotiations to succeed. We should not impose further sanctions now.”

AFP Photo/Mandel Ngan

Obama Keystone Threat Sets Up Veto Battles On Republican Agenda

Obama Keystone Threat Sets Up Veto Battles On Republican Agenda

By Angela Greiling Keane, Bloomberg News (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Barack Obama has vetoed fewer bills than any U.S. president since James Garfield held the office for six months in 1881. With Republicans now in control of Congress, that’ll probably change.

A White House threat yesterday to veto legislation that would allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built through the U.S. sets up a showdown with Republican leaders, who have laid out an agenda that may also include attempts to dismantle Obama’s health-care law and roll back environmental regulations and financial rules. Those measures are central to the legacy of the president, who has vetoed just two bills in six years.

“They’re going to send him some stuff they know ultimately he’ll veto,” said Miguel Rodriguez, a former director of the White House office of legislative affairs and now a partner at Bryan Cave LLP. “The message he’s going to send is, ‘Listen, I want to work together, but some things are just too far.'”

That could spark a risky confrontation for both the president and Republican lawmakers. Obama, who has accused Republicans of obstructing his programs since they took control of the U.S. House in 2011, could shoulder public blame for blocking bills that Congress passes. Republicans, who need to show voters they can govern, will face pressure to compromise with him, angering their base.

Obama, in an interview with National Public Radio released on Dec. 29, vowed to protect health and environmental legislation and rules.

“I haven’t used the veto pen very often since I’ve been in office,” he said. “Now I suspect there are going to be some times where I’ve got to pull that pen out. I’m going to defend gains that we’ve made in health care. I’m going to defend gains that we’ve made on environment and clean air and clean water.”

First up will be Keystone. The House plans to vote on Jan. 9 on a measure to allow the pipeline to be built. While there’s enough support in both chambers to approve the project, overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers. That will be especially hard to get in the Senate, where Republicans control 54 of the 100 seats.

Obama has hardened his tone, saying Keystone would create Canadian rather than American jobs as it crosses the U.S. to move oil from Canada’s tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said yesterday that if Congress passes a bill, “the president wouldn’t sign it.”

If Obama begins vetoing bills early in the new congressional session, then “it’s likely to degenerate into a political tug of war,” said Jon Kyl, who was the number two Senate Republican before leaving the chamber in 2013. “Then it’s just a matter of which one is better at explaining which one is the reason for the gridlock.”

The Republicans will challenge the president to veto legislation because they’ll want to show the party’s base “that they are pursuing their goals by confronting Obama with things he does not like,” said John Woolley, a political science professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The message they’ll deliver, he said, is: “‘Who’s the obstructionist now? Who’s not doing the work of the people?'”

The party may also seek to attach legislation to must-pass bills, such as spending measures, that Obama will be hard- pressed to reject.

Obama has issued so few vetoes because the Senate has been in Democratic hands since he became president in 2009, so the chamber hasn’t sent him measures they knew he’d reject. That’s changing now with the Republicans gaining control of the Senate in the November midterm elections for the first time since 2006.

Still, Senate rules often require 60 votes to advance major legislation, meaning Republicans will need to compromise with Democrats to hit that threshold.

The two bills Obama has vetoed came early in his administration — one of a 2009 spending bill and another of 2010 legislation he said would harm the recovery of the housing market and consumer protection for mortgage borrowers.

His two immediate predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, both stepped up their vetoes when the opposition party gained control of Congress during their presidencies. Bush, a Republican, issued 12 vetoes, all but 11 of them in the two years after Democrats took power in Congress in 2006. All of Democrat Clinton’s 37 vetoes came after Republicans won Congress in 1994. Garfield, who was assassinated in 1881, issued no vetoes.

Four of Bush’s vetoes were overturned by Congress, as were two of Clinton’s.

Presidents are given ten days, excluding Sundays, to sign or veto a bill. If a bill is unsigned after that time and Congress is in session, it becomes law. If those ten days pass and Congress adjourns, it’s considered a pocket veto.

Once a president vetoes a bill, Congress can override it during that same session with two-thirds of the votes in both the House and Senate.

Vote counting to ensure a veto can survive an override is important, said Ed Pagano, who was Obama’s Senate liaison and deputy assistant for legislative affairs.

“The president will not want to veto something that will be overridden,” said Pagano, who’s now a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. “That’s always a calculation.”

Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said Democrats need to be careful about trying to stand in the way of legislation, or they may alienate voters.

“Pick your battles wisely,” he said of the Democrats to reporters yesterday at the Capitol. “Try to rebrand your party because it was about you, not us. We didn’t win. You lost.”
___
Bloomberg reporter Kathleen Hunter in Washington contributed to this report.

AFP Photo/Don Emmert